Articles | Volume 17, issue 15
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5779-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5779-2024
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
01 Aug 2024
Methods for assessment of models |  | 01 Aug 2024

Exploring the potential of history matching for land surface model calibration

Nina Raoult, Simon Beylat, James M. Salter, Frédéric Hourdin, Vladislav Bastrikov, Catherine Ottlé, and Philippe Peylin

Related authors

Towards the Assimilation of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Data in a Land Surface Model using Adjoint-free Variational Methods
Simon Beylat, Nina Raoult, Cédric Bacour, Natalie Douglas, Tristan Quaife, Vladislav Bastrikov, Peter Julien Rayner, and Philippe Peylin
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-109,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-109, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Assimilating ESA CCI land surface temperature into the ORCHIDEE land surface model: insights from a multi-site study across Europe
Luis-Enrique Olivera-Guerra, Catherine Ottlé, Nina Raoult, and Philippe Peylin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 261–290, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-261-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-261-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modelling snowpack on ice surfaces with the ORCHIDEE land surface model: application to the Greenland ice sheet
Sylvie Charbit, Christophe Dumas, Fabienne Maignan, Catherine Ottlé, Nina Raoult, Xavier Fettweis, and Philippe Conesa
The Cryosphere, 18, 5067–5099, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-5067-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-5067-2024, 2024
Short summary
Using Free Air CO2 Enrichment data to constrain land surface model projections of the terrestrial carbon cycle
Nina Raoult, Louis-Axel Edouard-Rambaut, Nicolas Vuichard, Vladislav Bastrikov, Anne Sofie Lansø, Bertrand Guenet, and Philippe Peylin
Biogeosciences, 21, 1017–1036, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1017-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1017-2024, 2024
Short summary
Combining local model calibration with the emergent constraint approach to reduce uncertainty in the tropical land carbon cycle feedback
Nina Raoult, Tim Jupp, Ben Booth, and Peter Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 723–731, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-723-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-723-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Biogeosciences
Including the phosphorus cycle into the LPJ-GUESS dynamic global vegetation model (v4.1, r10994) – global patterns and temporal trends of N and P primary production limitation
Mateus Dantas de Paula, Matthew Forrest, David Warlind, João Paulo Darela Filho, Katrin Fleischer, Anja Rammig, and Thomas Hickler
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2249–2274, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2249-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2249-2025, 2025
Short summary
A comprehensive land-surface vegetation model for multi-stream data assimilation, D&B v1.0
Wolfgang Knorr, Matthew Williams, Tea Thum, Thomas Kaminski, Michael Voßbeck, Marko Scholze, Tristan Quaife, T. Luke Smallman, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Tim Green, Sönke Zaehle, Mika Aurela, Alexandre Bouvet, Emanuel Bueechi, Wouter Dorigo, Tarek S. El-Madany, Mirco Migliavacca, Marika Honkanen, Yann H. Kerr, Anna Kontu, Juha Lemmetyinen, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Arnaud Mialon, Tuuli Miinalainen, Gaétan Pique, Amanda Ojasalo, Shaun Quegan, Peter J. Rayner, Pablo Reyes-Muñoz, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Mike Schwank, Jochem Verrelst, Songyan Zhu, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Matthias Drusch
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2137–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Sources of uncertainty in the SPITFIRE global fire model: development of LPJmL-SPITFIRE1.9 and directions for future improvements
Luke Oberhagemann, Maik Billing, Werner von Bloh, Markus Drüke, Matthew Forrest, Simon P. K. Bowring, Jessica Hetzer, Jaime Ribalaygua Batalla, and Kirsten Thonicke
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2021–2050, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2021-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2021-2025, 2025
Short summary
The unicellular NUM v.0.91: a trait-based plankton model evaluated in two contrasting biogeographic provinces
Trine Frisbæk Hansen, Donald Eugene Canfield, Ken Haste Andersen, and Christian Jannik Bjerrum
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1895–1916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1895-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1895-2025, 2025
Short summary
FESOM2.1-REcoM3-MEDUSA2: an ocean–sea ice–biogeochemistry model coupled to a sediment model
Ying Ye, Guy Munhoven, Peter Köhler, Martin Butzin, Judith Hauck, Özgür Gürses, and Christoph Völker
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 977–1000, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-977-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-977-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Andrianakis, I., Vernon, I. R., McCreesh, N., McKinley, T. J., Oakley, J. E., Nsubuga, R. N., Goldstein, M., and White, R. G.: Bayesian History Matching of Complex Infectious Disease Models Using Emulation: A Tutorial and a Case Study on HIV in Uganda, PLoS Comput. Biol., 11, e1003968, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003968, 2015. a
Baker, E., Harper, A. B., Williamson, D., and Challenor, P.: Emulation of high-resolution land surface models using sparse Gaussian processes with application to JULES, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1913–1929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1913-2022, 2022. a, b
Bastrikov, V., MacBean, N., Bacour, C., Santaren, D., Kuppel, S., and Peylin, P.: Land surface model parameter optimisation using in situ flux data: comparison of gradient-based versus random search algorithms (a case study using ORCHIDEE v1.9.5.2), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4739–4754, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4739-2018, 2018. a, b, c, d
Beylat, S. and Raoult, N.: simonbeylat/History_Matching_ORCHIDEE: v1.0.0 (Exp_Pot_HM), Zenodo [code, data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10592299, 2024. a
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y., Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Caubel, A., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A., Cugnet, D., D'Andrea, F., Davini, P., de Lavergne, C., Denvil, S., Deshayes, J., Devilliers, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J.-L., Dupont, E., Éthé, C., Fairhead, L., post Falletti, L., Flavoni, S., Foujols, M.-A., Gardoll, S., Gastineau, G., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guenet, B., Guez, L. E., Guilyardi, E., Guimberteau, M., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A., Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Khodri, M., Krinner, G., Lebas, N., Levavasseur, G., Lévy, C., Li, L., Lott, F., Lurton, T., Luyssaert, S., Madec, G., Madeleine, J.-B., Maignan, F., Marchand, M., Marti, O., Mellul, L., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Ottlé, C., Peylin, P., Planton, Y., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Rochetin, N., Rousset, C., Sepulchre, P., Sima, A., Swingedouw, D., Thiéblemont, R., Traore, A. K., Vancoppenolle, M., Vial, J., Vialard, J., Viovy, N., and Vuichard, N.: Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020. a
Download
Short summary
We use computer models to predict how the land surface will respond to climate change. However, these complex models do not always simulate what we observe in real life, limiting their effectiveness. To improve their accuracy, we use sophisticated statistical and computational techniques. We test a technique called history matching against more common approaches. This method adapts well to these models, helping us better understand how they work and therefore how to make them more realistic.
Share